Cover 8x10 or not?

[Ed Bray]

I realise that it might be a step too far for me, but I am toying with the idea of buying either an 8x10 camera or an 8x10 rear standard to fit my Horseman LX.

I have done a fair bit of searching and have seen mention that some of my current crop of lenses will cover 8x10 albeit with limited or no movements.

I currently have the following lenses:

47mm f5.6 SA XL (won't cover)
65mm f8 SW Fujinon (won't cover)
90mm f8 SA (won't cover)
121mm f8 SA (may cover)
150mm f5.6 Apo Symmar (won't cover)
180mm f5.6 Apo Symmar (won't cover)
210mm f5.6 Apo Symmar (may cover)
240mm f5.6 Symmar S (will cover)
300mm f5.6 Symmar S (will cover)
360mm f9 Apo Ronar (may cover)

So I have 2 lenses that will definitely cover 8x10 (240 & 300) and 3 lenses that may (121, 210 & 360) can anyone confirm whether they can or not and if so what would the angle of view equal compared to a 35mm lens?

I have done some searching but there are conflicting results.

[Steve Barber]

IIRC the diagonal for an 8x10 frame is 312mm and, if you use the manufacturer’s rating for the image circle of the lens in question when focused at infinity as your standard, then, the APO Sironar-S is just shy of covering. In use, however, as a practical matter, it will cover with no capacity for movements.

As to what 8x10 lens is comparable to a 35mm lens, the usual rule of thumb is to define a normal lens for a format as being equal to its diagonal and that is the basis for saying 4x5 is three times 35mm and ignoring the difference in the aspect ratios. By extension, a normal lens for 8x10 would be 300mm or 6 times a normal 35mm lens of 50mm.

There is a lot of difference of opinion regarding the coverage of the Artars and Ronars. Personally, I think Rodenstock has it right when they advise the focal length of a Ronar lens, used focused at infinity, should twice the long side of the image and I do not like less than a 19 inch Artar or Ronar on an 8x10 frame focused at infinity. As to the 360mm Ronar, I do not use mine on an 8x10 because I do not think it covers the frame acceptably.

[Ed Bray]

Thanks for you post Steve, I have had a look at the image circles quoted by the manufacturer, but then on different posts recently I have read that both the 121mm f8 Super Angulon and the 210mm Symmar S will cover 8x10 with very limited or no movements.

I purchased the 360mm Apo Ronar as a 'Head & Shoulders' portrait lens and close up lens for my 4x5 so it was never purchased with the 8x10 format in mind.

So if I take a factor of 6 as the AOV comparison with 35mm then I would have a ultrawide of 20mm ish (121), a wide of 35mm ish (210), a 40mm ish (240) and a 50mm ish (300).

[Mark Sawyer]

The 121mm Super Angulon will "illuminate" 8x10 at infinity, but the last half-inch at the corners gets all stretchy-distorted. You could crop it down to whole plate (6.5x8.5) and it would cover.

I believe the 360mm Apo-Ronar covers, but without much left.

[Jim Graves]

I shoot the 360mm APO Ronar on 8x10 all the time and like it alot ... but it is tight for movements ... which is fine for most of what I shoot. But as Steve notes, your mileage may vary. I'd suggest you give it a try.

The catalog says it covers 7 x 10 wide open and 16 x 20 at 1:1. As with a lot of factory specs, I think they're being a little conservative on coverage.

Here's a link to a great website for lens specs (the APO Ronars are in the "Process" lens section): LINK

[John Kasaian]

My 14" f/9 APO Artar will cover 8x10 with a little wiggle room. I dont know if this could translate into what you might expect from your f/9 APO Ronar, but it might be worth trying.

[Ed Bray]

Thanks for all the comments folks, i suppose like most things its a case of try it and see what I like. It looks like if I do get an 8x10 i will have a few lenses to use.